Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/iXpress


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Grand River Transit. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

iXpress

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article was marked as containing original research. Most of the text has no references and the only references are not independent (their own page and YouTube channel). I found many references that cite it using Google, but they mention mainly routes, no in depth coverage to be able to source the extensive text of the article. Following advice from the Teahouse I recomend that only the content that could be referenced with reliable sources be merged into the iXpress section of Grand River Transit Rogerx2 (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As explained at Teahouse, this requires a merger discussion, not a deletion nomination. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sections of an article being original research does not mean that the whole article must be considered to be, questionable unsourced statements can be removed. —░] PaleoNeonate █ ⏎ ? ERROR ░ 23:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge - There seems to already be a subsection at Grand River Transit which could indeed be expanded, and the notability of the operator is greater than that of the routes. —░] PaleoNeonate █ ⏎ ? ERROR ░ 23:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge - Per —░] PaleoNeonate █ ⏎ ERROR ░ __Dthomsen8 (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment My recomendation is also to merge into the iXpress section of Grand River Transit only the material that can be properly sourced. --Rogerx2 (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that according to a recent source I added to the article, both iXpress and ION routes will be merged into a new system by GRT. --Rogerx2 (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please note that as per WP:DISCUSSAFD the nominator usually does not add an extra vote, but there's no issue with commenting, and in this particular case I don't see this as a problem, because the goal appears to have been to merge, and the forming consensus appears to also support this. Quoting Cordless Larry: "this requires a merger discussion, not a deletion nomination".  —░] PaleoNeonate █ ⏎ ? ERROR ░ 17:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out . I changed my vote into a comment. --Rogerx2 (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge as per WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTTIMETABLE. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  14:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.